feat: Add foreign key on ecr_rr_conditions to the condition_reference table

[akasper]

PULL REQUEST

Now that we have a consistent identifier for conditions (via the condition_reference table), are add a foreign key reference to those conditions in our per-eCR reportability response conditions.

Summary

• A database schema change that adds condition_id to ecr_rr_conditions, as well as a foreign key
• The attendant TypeScript interface definition changes for ecr_rr_conditions
• Modifications to data saving logic
• Logic for backfilling existing data
• Tests that document and prove the functionality

Related Issue

Ticket #513

Acceptance Criteria

• A nullable column called condition_id should be added to the ecr_rr_conditions table (both schemas). It should be a foreign key to condition_reference
  • postgres
  • sql server
• On saving data to ecr_rr_conditions it should be stamped with this ID if it can be determined
• Create a migration such that the data already in the ecr_rr_conditions table gets an accurate fk reference to the condition_reference table

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.72727% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.57%. Comparing base (aa306ab) to head (b9db987).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...-db/migrations/core/20250522120000_condition_fk.ts	72.72%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #678      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.74%   92.57%   +4.83%     
==========================================
  Files         287      178     -109     
  Lines       14667     7956    -6711     
  Branches      993      990       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        12869     7365    -5504     
+ Misses       1780      573    -1207     
  Partials       18       18              

Flag	Coverage Δ
ecr-viewer	93.01% <72.72%> (-0.06%)	⬇️
fhir-converter	?
ingestion	?
message-parser	96.12% <ø> (ø)
message-refiner	?
orchestration	85.45% <ø> (ø)
record-linkage	?
trigger-code-reference	?
validation	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[austin-hall-skylight]

I noticed that COVID-19 has two condition codes and when we backfill the condition codes we are setting condition_code in ecr_rr_conditions to whatever value came last. I'm not sure which - if either - is the correct value but I'd like to figure that out.

in our tes.db:

logs of the rows we are iterating through when backfilling condition codes:

The final values in ecr_rr_conditions:

[mcmcgrath13]

I noticed that COVID-19 has two condition codes and when we backfill the condition codes we are setting condition_code in ecr_rr_conditions to whatever value came last. I'm not sure which - if either - is the correct value but I'd like to figure that out.

I was also just noticing this in the program form page. There are a few other duplicate condition names there as well. This comes from TES having multiple codes

I'm not sure what we should do about that in practice though...

[austin-hall-skylight]

I noticed that COVID-19 has two condition codes and when we backfill the condition codes we are setting condition_code in ecr_rr_conditions to whatever value came last. I'm not sure which - if either - is the correct value but I'd like to figure that out.

I was also just noticing this in the program form page. There are a few other duplicate condition names there as well. This comes from TES having multiple codes

I'm not sure what we should do about that in practice though...

Let's discuss at standup. Maybe normalizing the ecr_rr_condition to condition code mapping out into another table would help, but I hate to throw that wrench into things this far into it 😖

[mcmcgrath13]

same question here

[mcmcgrath13]

why is this condition reference and before each needed?